₦airaland Forum

PstDapo:
Dear SIMPs,

1.) If she is not fvcking you, she is fucking someone else

2.) Know this and know peace.

JESHAL007:
Picks mic

[...]

Lessons:

1. The current society has conditioned the average young man to believe that you must have money to get into relationships hence the high fraud rate by young men (if you know what I mean).

[...]

Martinez39s:
See how men keep deceiving themselves. Who told you that love and trust must always go together? Loving someone doesn't mean you must trust the person. The idea that love and trust must go together is just a manipulative tactic that uses your feelings for a woman to make you an unsuspecting sheep to her and her manipulations. If you think I am wrong, then I dare you to do the following:
(1) Never get a DNA test on your kids because you trust your wife/babymama since you love her.
(2) Don't ever check her phone and social media accounts when you have the chance because you trust her since you love her.
(3) If you have money, take her overseas, marry her there with a marriage license, live there, and expect her not to torment you and use the misandric system and family courts against you. Do all these because you trust her since you love her. Mteww.
(4) If she says she is a virgin, keep spending on her and don't verify her claims until on the wedding night (that's if she lets a silly beta cùck like you service her promise land) because you trust her since you love her.
(5) Grant your wife/ babymama/gf unsupervised and unrestricted access to your bank accounts and property documents, and even buy (or change) all your properties in her name and except not to be screwed over in future because you trust her since you love her. Some of you can't even trust your kids with your bank accounts yet you think love and trust must go together.

I can go on and on. As I have said, love and trust are independent of each other. The romantic love a man has toward a woman is based on his feelings and perception of the woman. On the other hand, trust is based on evidence and reasoning except where you can't help it. A teacher can only trust a student to ace WAEC if his/her academic record has been outstanding; such trust is not based on his love for his student. If you tow this path of "trust and love go together," you are setting up yourself for brutal manipulation and grief. Ask men before you. As I have said the idea that love and trust go together is just a manipulative tactic that uses your feelings for a woman to make you an unsuspecting sheep to a her and her manipulations. There is a reason why fraudsters and scammers try to elicit trust from their potential victims: they want you to be an unsuspecting sheep so you can be too easy to deceive.

SpencerForbes:
A person operating from a position of abundance, multiple options and self-worth would not be overly concerned with a partner's past or current actions. Obsessing over a partner's private life is often a sign of high emotional investment or 'oneitis,' which can be emotionally draining.

When you prioritize your own value, a partner will naturally work to align with your standards, understanding the significant loss if the relationship ends.

KennethIbe59:
Good day kings in the house

Please I need your take on this
There’s this girl I met — she just relocated from Abuja to Lagos. She’s the sister to my senior man’s wife.

I’ve been very close to their family before I relocated to another area, but I still visit them often. My senior man’s wife likes me a lot.

So, one day when I visited them, I met this girl and collected her number. I’m 35, and she just turned 27.

She was actually the first to chat me up, and we started vibing well. Most times, she’s the one who initiates our chats.

I’ve visited her at her workplace before; we’ve kissed twice on different occasions. She has even sent me money for food twice. I’ve never given her money before — I only spend a little when we hang out for drinks.

Last Sunday was her birthday. I went to see her, called her on the phone, and she came out without telling her sister where she was going. I took her to a bar, and we lodged for about an hour — we had sex.

While we were at the bar, her sister kept calling her several times, but she didn’t pick up.

After everything, I escorted her back home and even spent some time with her sister’s husband at a nearby bar before heading back to my place.

I didn’t call her that night. The next morning, I called — but she didn’t pick, which is unlike her because she always calls me “back” whenever she misses my call.

Since then, I haven’t called her again.

Also I bought her body spray as a gift for her birthday

What do you think I should do, kings?

@Rizzputin
@pukkalolo
@heartofcity12
@caveAdullam
@martinez39s
@skepticus
@emmaodet
@pansophist

Martinez39s:
Why do men like to deceive themselves that they do not care about a woman's past? Red pill or not, men naturally care about a woman's past. The fact that society has reached a point where most men pretend they don't care and maintain this illusion is testament to how far manhood has fallen.

Take any bluepilled man who vehemently claims with utmost conviction that he is not bothered about his girlfriend's past aside and make his girlfriend explicitly tell him of her past deeds. You will notice the light dim in his eyes. That is his attraction towards his girlfriend withering. His perception of her as a partner erodes. This dim will adversely affect the relationship moving forward.

If you ever disagreed with me about caring about a woman's past and your mood changes when you hear explicit details of the fact, let's say, that you girlfriend had a few threesomes, or was pounded like a worthless slùt in styles that you don't even try with your "sweet angle" (girlfriend), then you actually care about the past. No dey whine yourself.

If you lose strength at the fact that the same girl was pounded at a frequency unbecoming of the image of her in your head, then you actually care about the past and body count.

If you disagree with me still, and claim that you really meant she doesn't have to be a virgin (LOL!) and a low body count is okay, then you still care about the past because a past of high body count is not acceptable to you. You still care about the past! The problem is how do you know a low body count? If you set a maximum number as a requirement, how do you know she hasn't exceeded it? Many people will delude themselves that they can tell with certainty, but they can't say anything reasonable when asked of their supposed infallible method. The truth is you can't tell.

If you insist she has a low body count or that it is irrelevant as long as she is a normal girl in the sense that she hasn't done sex work, how can you be sure that your decent nonvirgin hasn't done sex work or made any other sex arrangements?

There are many more things I can write, but time gives me no room. Be sincere with yourself and admit that you care the past. Don't be among the men who think past is irrelevant. Don't be among the men who choose a certain kind of women when it comes to your standard. Don't buy into the social engineering that posits that past doesn't matter; don't run along with it. It is the same way many beta men now allow their wives to wear cropped gym wears that only hookup girls and sex workers should wear, and they then defend this norm with silly nonsense.

Don't be hesitant to stand out and embrace your common sense and red pill insights.

SpencerForbes:
Checking a woman's past depends entirely on the destination of the relationship.

It is okay to care about a partner's past, but context is everything. You cannot use the same metrics for a 'wife material' and a casual fling.

If you are actually planning to marry her—knowing fully well that not all dating leads to marriage—then by all means, vet her and research her history. But if the relationship is strictly for fun or FWB, why stress yourself over who else she has been with? As long as there is mutual respect and the 'knacking' is good, her history is irrelevant.

We need to stop assuming every woman dates for marriage. Some are just there for the satisfaction or because you are available. Digging into the past of a girl you have no intention of marrying just screams insecurity and desperation.

If you are building a future, vet her. If it’s just vibes, enjoy the moment. Until a ring is on that finger, technically, she still belongs to the streets.

Martinez39s:
This is wrong, bro. Actually, lack of options or red pill understanding and orientation will make a man unmindful of and unconcerned about a woman's past.

By your logic, a man who marries an ex-pôrnstar, who is older than him and has three children before him, can POSSIBLY be an alpha operating from a position of abundance, multiple options and self-worth. Error 400! What do you think about this?

Almost any woman can act the way you want if they benefit from being with you and will lose a lot if you walk away. Does that mean any such woman is okay to marry? No!

In fact, being redpilled will make you take a woman's past seriously in ways the common man wouldn't. You don't just marry anything because she is acting a certain way you approve, especially after being incentivised by benefits.

I will type more later. Just know that it is dangerous to disregard a woman's past. Settling for anything because they are behaving the way you like, or because they are manageable, is actually a beta trait. It signals lack of options, game and self-esteem because men who lacks these usually do this.

You must care about her past, her background, her age and many other attributes. Ignore the past if you want to shed tears.

Epositive:
Can the past even be ascertained? Especially for women who relocated to a new environment and have "turned a new leaf".

SpencerForbes:
[/b] You cannot ascertain her past [b]

JESHAL007:
When it comes to committed relationships, particularly courtship and marriage, a woman will choose the best financial option available to her. It doesn't matter if he is a beta, alpha, redpillers or simp. All that matters is financial stability, her comfort and survival, which all boils down to your resources. You ability to satisfy her lust doesn't count as it cannot buy bread. If you are a redpiller with a great sexual appeal and a masculine frame made of adamatium or vibranium, the woman you are discussing marriage with will overlook you and pick the man that has more resources than you even if he the most pathetic simp and he is so unattractive and disgusting. She will pick him even if she has to share him with other women.

JESHAL007:
Women don't marry based on lust and your ability to satisfy them in bed, they consider your resources and what you can provide, and they will keep swinging, at any time, to the better financial option available to them. This is hypergamy. Hypergamy is innate, it only cares about now and it doesn't sleep.

Epositive:
Gbam. Then how do one vet when the past is in the dark? Like I mentioned earlier, this is for the “repentant bandits"

JESHAL007:
Women don't marry based on lust and your ability to satisfy them in bed, they consider your resources and what you can provide, and they will keep swinging, at any time, to the better financial option available to them. This is hypergamy. Hypergamy is innate, it only cares about now and it doesn't sleep.